JUDGMENT : Dharam Chand Chaudhary, J. Plaintiff Bank feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Kullu on 1.1.2002 in civil appeal No. 59 of 2001 is in second appeal before this Court. The complaint is that learned lower appellate Court while brushing aside the cogent and reliable evidence produced by the plaintiff has agreed with the findings recorded by learned Senior Sub Judge, Kullu in the judgment rendered in Civil Suit No. 11 of 1996 on 2.1.2001 whereby the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,16,048/- filed against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendants, was dismissed. 2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether the courts below erred in dismissing the application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under order 19 Rule 17-A read with Order 18 Rule 2(4) and Section 151 of the CPC especially in view of the fact that the appellant/plaintiff had averred that the balance confirmation dated 24.2.1994. Ex. PW-3/B had been tampered with after the filing of the suit. 2. Whether the courts below have erred in coming to the conclusion that Ex. PW-3/B has been tampered with to bring the suit within limitation." 3. It is seen from the record of this case that the plaintiff-Bank has been non-suited on the sole ground that the suit was time barred. 4. If coming to the factual matrix, defendant No. 1 through its proprietor defendant No. 2 has approached the plaintiff-Bank for the sanction of facility of cash credit limit to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- in the year 1989. Later on he approached for enhancement of the limit from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The request so made were acceded to by the plaintiff-Bank and on execution of the various documents, the facility of cash credit limit initially was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 30,000/- and later on enhanced to Rs. 50,000/-. The rate of interest as agreed upon was 14% per annum, calculable on daily balance with quarterly rests. Defendant No. 3 stood guarantor for defendants No. 1 and 2. The limit was valid for a period of one year with discretion of the plaintiff to review the same on year to year basis. The defendants allegedly bound themselves to deposit the daily sale proceeds, submit the stock statement, and comply with the terms and conditions on which the facility was sanctioned. The limit was valid for a period of one year with discretion of the plaintiff to review the same on year to year basis. The defendants allegedly bound themselves to deposit the daily sale proceeds, submit the stock statement, and comply with the terms and conditions on which the facility was sanctioned. Defendants, however, later on became irregular in the payment of the outstanding amount and the said amount i.e. Rs. 1,16,048/- became due and recoverable from them together with interest. Hence, the suit. 5. The defendants, when put to notice, have contested the suit. In preliminary they raised the legal objections qua maintainability of the suit. It is denied that they approached the plaintiff-Bank for sanction of the facility of cash credit limit and rather their claim was stated to be sponsored by District Industries Centre, Kullu, in view of defendant No. 1 being small scale industries. The defendants were apprised that the rate of interest would be 4%. The execution of various documents was also denied. It is submitted that after availing the facility upto 6.1.1992, defendant No. 1, had closed its business under due intimation to the plaintiff that the facility of cash credit limit was no more required. The execution of the balance confirmation letters and also deposits made in the account thereafter was also denied being wrong. 6. Defendant No. 3 in separate written statement filed on his behalf has also denied the entire case as pleaded in the plaint being wrong. 7. Learned trial Court framed the following issues and put the parties on trial:-- "1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit amount? If so, to what extent and at what rate of interest? OPP (2) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation? OPP (3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable on behalf of the plaintiff bank, as alleged? OPD (4) Relief." 8. The plaintiff in turn has examined three witnesses in all who are its officers/officials. PW-1 Shri Amar Chand, Assistant Manager, remained posted in Manali Branch of the plaintiff-Bank during the year 1991-96. He has filed the suit in the trial Court under his signature and also proved the documents Ex. PW-1/A copy of power of attorney, PW-1/B sanction order, Ex. PW-1/C Statement of account, Ex. PW-1/D notice dated 12.3.1994, Ex. PW-1/E copy of notice dated 30.3.1994, Ex. PW-1/F postal receipts and Ex. He has filed the suit in the trial Court under his signature and also proved the documents Ex. PW-1/A copy of power of attorney, PW-1/B sanction order, Ex. PW-1/C Statement of account, Ex. PW-1/D notice dated 12.3.1994, Ex. PW-1/E copy of notice dated 30.3.1994, Ex. PW-1/F postal receipts and Ex. PW-1/G agreement letter. PW-2 Anand Kumar, who remained posted in the branch of the plaintiff-Bank at Kullu during the year 1986 to 1990, has proved the balance confirmation letter dated 30.6.1999 Ex. PW-2/A, whereas PW-3 Shri Onkar Singh, Manager of the plaintiff-Bank has been examined to prove the letter dated 9.3.1992 Ex. PW-3/A whereby defendant No. 2 had requested to shift the money in L.B.Y. account of defendant No. 1, balance confirmation letter dated 24.2.1994 Ex. PW-3/B and letter dated 7.2.1992 Ex. PW-3/C, he addressed to defendant No. 1 with regard to the payment of the outstanding dues. 9. On the other hand, defendant No. 2 the proprietor of defendant No. 1 has stepped into the witness-box as DW-1 and denied the execution of various documents as appeared in the plaintiff's evidence and also the balance confirmation letters as well as the deposits in the loan account vide payment vouchers Ex. PW-3/B to Ex. PW-3/J. 10. An application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Order 18 Rule 2(4) and Section 151 CPC also came to be filed with a prayer to allow the plaintiff to produce in additional evidence the photocopy of the balance confirmation letter Ex. PW-3/B. The same, however, was dismissed. 11. Learned trial Court on appreciation of the evidence available on record ultimately dismissed the suit while answering issue No. 1 and 2 against the plaintiff whereas issue No. 3 in favour of defendant. 12. Lower appellate Court has dismissed the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. 13. The legality and validity of the judgment and decree under challenge has been assailed on several grounds, however, mainly that evidence available on record has been misread and misconstrued. The application registered as CMP No. 407 of 2005 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has also been filed for seeking permission to produce the photocopy of balance confirmation dated 24.2.1994 by way of additional evidence. 14. Ms. The application registered as CMP No. 407 of 2005 under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC has also been filed for seeking permission to produce the photocopy of balance confirmation dated 24.2.1994 by way of additional evidence. 14. Ms. Vandana Kuthiala, learned counsel representing the plaintiff has vehemently argued that the trial Court erred in dismissing the application filed under Order 18 Rule 17-A for seeking permission to lead additional evidence and that the lower appellate Court has also not considered this aspect of the matter. As per specific case of the plaintiff the balance confirmation letter Ex. PW-3/B was tampered with after filing of the suit. The plaintiff's case to this effect is stated to be erroneously overlooked. As per common practice in a case of non-performing and defaulting account some money is collected from the defaulters and deposited in his account. In this case also such practice has been followed but the defendants have dishonestly denied making of such deposits. 15. It is also pointed out by Ms. Kuthiala that had it been the defence that there was interpolation in the balance confirmation letter Ex. PW-3/B, why the same was not pleaded in the written statement filed to the suit originally. She has also drawn the attention of this Court to the provisions contained under Section 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and submitted that the entries in the books of account by the Bank are to be believed to be true and correct. 16. On the other hand, Shri Ajay Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of defendants No. 1, 2, 4 and 6 has argued that when the author of Ex. PW-3/B has not been examined, no purpose is likely to be served by allowing the plaintiff to produce the copy of the said document by way of additional evidence. It is also pointed out from the record that no ground before learned appellate Court qua dismissal of the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC was urged and as such there was no question of any discussion thereon. The interest entries, according to Mr. Sharma, were being reversed to bring the suit within the period of limitation. The deposits allegedly shown to have been made by the defendants were made by PW-3 Onkar Singh as per his own testimony and according to Mr. The interest entries, according to Mr. Sharma, were being reversed to bring the suit within the period of limitation. The deposits allegedly shown to have been made by the defendants were made by PW-3 Onkar Singh as per his own testimony and according to Mr. Sharma, it has been done to bring the suit within the period of limitation. On the same lines are the arguments addressed on behalf of respondents No. 5 and 8 by Shri Chander Paul Sood, Advocate representing them. Mr. Sood has further contended that had Ex. PW-3/B been interpolated by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, why a complaint was not made against them or case registered with the Police. It is also pointed out that as per the practice prevalent in the Bank, the balance as on last date of the quarter is being got confirmed, however, according to him, it is not known as to why Ex. PW-3/B has been got executed in departure to such established practice. 17. It is the question of dismissal of the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A read with Order 18 Rule 2(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been hotly contested on both sides. Therefore, before adjudication of the legal question, it is deemed appropriate to decide the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure registered as CMP No. 407 of 2005. I am not in agreement with the submissions that learned trial Court has erroneously dismissed the application filed for seeking permission to lead additional evidence for the reasons that had the document Ex. PW-3/B been forged or interpolated during pendency of the suit, a complaint including the report with the Police could have been lodged. No complaint or report has been lodged till date irrespective of the observations to this effect made by learned trial Court in the order passed on 27.10.2000 in the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC. Otherwise also, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the plaintiff to produce in evidence the photocopy of Ex. PW-3/B for the reason that the help of advanced technology by way of xeroxing a document, one can make changes therein suitably for his or her benefit. When in the original i.e. Ex. Otherwise also, no useful purpose is likely to be served by allowing the plaintiff to produce in evidence the photocopy of Ex. PW-3/B for the reason that the help of advanced technology by way of xeroxing a document, one can make changes therein suitably for his or her benefit. When in the original i.e. Ex. PW-3/B, there is interpolation in respect of year, the photocopy Annexure A-1 will hardly of any help to the plaintiff's case even if allowed to be produced by way of additional evidence. 18. Interestingly enough, in the grounds of appeal before learned lower appellate Court no ground that the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A was dismissed by learned trial Court erroneously is raised. As a matter of fact, no ground seems to be urged in this regard. Therefore, there was no occasion to learned lower appellate Court to have touched this aspect of the matter and recorded findings thereon. When no point was urged before learned lower appellate Court touching this aspect of the matter, the plaintiff is not justified in filing the application for seeking permission to produce additional evidence in the present appeal. Therefore, the legal principles settled by Hon'ble apex Court in Jayaramdas and Sons Vs. Mirza Rafatullah Baig and Others, (2004) 10 SCC 507 and by Punjab and Haryana High Court in Weston Electronics Ltd. Vs. Chand Radio and Others are hardly of any help to the plaintiff's case being distinguishable on facts. The application for the reasons stated herein above is without any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. 19. Now coming to the legal question, the controversy revolve around the genuineness and authenticity of the balance confirmation letter Ex. PW-3/B and rightly so because in case this document is held genuine, the suit will be within the period of limitation and if forged or interpolated, the same will be time barred as has also been held by both Courts below. 20. Learned lower appellate Court while affirming the findings that Ex. PW-3/B has been interpolated in order to bring the suit within the period of limitation, has discussed this aspect of the matter from different angle and in so many unambiguous words held that the document Ex. PW-3/B has been interpolated by the officers/officials of the plaintiff-Bank in order to bring the suit well within the period of limitation. PW-3/B has been interpolated in order to bring the suit within the period of limitation, has discussed this aspect of the matter from different angle and in so many unambiguous words held that the document Ex. PW-3/B has been interpolated by the officers/officials of the plaintiff-Bank in order to bring the suit well within the period of limitation. A reference in this behalf can be made to the discussion in para 19 to para 23 of the judgment under challenge. When vide balance confirmation letter Ex. P-3, the balance as on 25.12.1988 was got affirmed on 31.12.1988 and vide balance confirmation letter Ex. P-4, the balance as on 29.6.1989 on 30.6.1989, why there was departure from such settled practice because vide disputed balance confirmation letter balance in the account of the defendant as on 30.6.1993 inclusive of interest upto 30.3.1992 has been shown to be got confirmed from defendant No. 2, the proprietor of defendant No. 1 on 24.2.1994. It is also significant to note that as on 26.12.1992, the balance in the account of the defendant has been shown Rs. 70,852.43. How it could have been reduced to Rs. 61,628.43 as on 31.3.1993, when no amount by way of repayment was deposited by the defendants in the loan account. As per this document interest charged for the quarter ending June, September and December 1992 amounting to Rs. 9224/- has been reversed allegedly on account of non-performing account, however, without any plausible and reasonable explanation qua this aspect of the matter either in the plaint or in the evidence produced. The interest to my mind seems to be reversed to reduced the balance i.e. Rs. 70,852.43 as on December 26, 1992 because Rs. 61,608.43 was the balance as on 31.3.1992. Therefore, it seems that some old balance confirmation letter has been interpolated and shown to have been executed on 24.2.1994. Otherwise also, Rs. 61,608.43 was the balance as on 31.3.1992 and not as on 30.6.1993. It is not understandable as to why the balance as on 30.3.1993 has been got confirmed and not as on 31.3.1993. 21. Learned lower appellate Court has closely examined the document Ex. PW-3/B and has opined that year 1994 appears to be converted by way of conversion of figure 1' into 4'. It is not understandable as to why the balance as on 30.3.1993 has been got confirmed and not as on 31.3.1993. 21. Learned lower appellate Court has closely examined the document Ex. PW-3/B and has opined that year 1994 appears to be converted by way of conversion of figure 1' into 4'. In order to show that the interest due as on 30.3.1992 got confirmed from the defendants words 'June/December' have been scored out and 3' written over word June. The year 1992 has also been changed by way of over writing. In the end of the document against date figure 94' is not only in some different ink but figure 4' is clearly interfered with. This Court is not in agreement that all such interpolation in this document has been made after its presentation along with the plaint in the Court. Even the scribe of the document, who as per the testimony of PW-3 Onkar Singh is Dheeraj Patwardhan, an employee of the Bank, has not been examined. As a matter of fact, it is said Shri Patwardhan, who could have thrown some light about such over-writing and interpolation in this document. Therefore, on account of failure to examine him as a witness, an adverse inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff. It is significant to note that Ex. PW-3/B has been stamped with the revenue stamp of 40 paisa. When PW-3 has himself stated while in the witness-box that after 1992, a balance confirmation letter is required to be stamped with revenue stamp worth Rs. 1, the stamping of this document with 40 paisa revenue stamp leads to the only conclusion that the same pertains to the period prior to the year 1992. 22. If coming to the notice Ex. PW-1/D, as per this document, balance as on 9.3.1994 was Rs. 88,832.94 whereas as per Ex. PW-1/E as on 31.3.1994 it was Rs. 89,639/-. On this score also, had the plaintiff-Bank confirmed the balance as on 24.2.1994, it should have not been Rs. 61,628.43 and rather the amount upto date i.e. as claimed in the legal notice supra. This also creates doubt and it would not be improper to conclude that the balance confirmation letter Ex. PW-3/B was not executed on 24.2.1994. 23. Another peculiar feature is the deposits as per statement of account Ex. PW-1/C made on 24.2.1994, 26.2.1994, 9.3.1994, 21.3.1994, 31.3.1994 and 12.4.1994 i.e. Rs. This also creates doubt and it would not be improper to conclude that the balance confirmation letter Ex. PW-3/B was not executed on 24.2.1994. 23. Another peculiar feature is the deposits as per statement of account Ex. PW-1/C made on 24.2.1994, 26.2.1994, 9.3.1994, 21.3.1994, 31.3.1994 and 12.4.1994 i.e. Rs. 300/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 200/-, Rs. 200/- and Rs. 200/- respectively in the loan account of the defendants. Admittedly, these deposits have not been made by the defendants nor the vouchers whereby the same deposited, bears the signature of either of the defendants. The statement of account even if believed to be prepared from the entries in the books of account kept in the Bank, the same can only be taken to saddle the defendants with liability, if supported by evidence cogent and reliable. In this case, since the suit has been dismissed on the question of limitation, there is no need to look into the authenticity and genuineness of the entries in the statement of account and also the supporting evidence. Therefore, the law laid down by Hon'ble apex Court in Chandradhar Goswami and Others Vs. The Gauhati Bank Ltd., AIR 1967 SC 1058 is not applicable to the present case. 24. On the other hand, PW-3 Onkar Singh, none-else, but the Manager of the plaintiff Bank, has admitted that it is he who had made such deposits. It has also been done in order to bring the suit within the period of limitation. I am, therefore, clear in my mind that both Courts below have not committed any illegality or irregularity while arriving at a conclusion that the document Ex. PW-3/B has been interpolated to bring the suit within the period of limitation. No legal question qua dismissal of the application under Order 18 Rule 17-A CPC is made out because the plaintiff-Bank did not assail the order passed by learned trial Court in the lower appellate Court at all. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot be permitted to raise any such question in the present appeal. Therefore, no question of law, muchless the substantial questions of law, as formulated in this appeal, arises for adjudication and the appeal as such deserves to be dismissed. 25. On the other hand, the judgment and decree under challenge has been passed on proper appreciation of the given facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record. Therefore, no question of law, muchless the substantial questions of law, as formulated in this appeal, arises for adjudication and the appeal as such deserves to be dismissed. 25. On the other hand, the judgment and decree under challenge has been passed on proper appreciation of the given facts and circumstances and the evidence available on record. The same, therefore, can be said to be legally and factually sustainable and deserves to be affirmed. The appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. No orders so as to costs.